What we don’t seem to have reached is much agreement on exactly what that value is. As we look forwards to this week’s launch of Ben’s book on complexity in development (which I have yet to read), it seems an opportune time to reflect on what we know. In that 2008 exploratory review we set out to examine whether complexity and development was a case of ‘paradigm, hype, or lens’. Six years on, here’s my attempt to review the evidence on some straight questions on complexity and development, in two parts. In this first part, I look at whether development problems are complex and why it matters; in the second part I will look at what to do about that complexity where it exists.

*N.B. to avoid disappearing up my own comments page I will use the popular simple-complicated-complex (bake a cake, make a rocket, raise a child) schema subscribed to by Stacey, Zimmerman, Snowden et al.

So the answer to ‘are development problems complex’ is: yes, some of them. While development problems might be more likely to be complex than others, we must judge on a case by case basis.

2) What does it mean to say development problems are complex?

For me, saying a problem is complex is akin to saying it is economic, or that it is ecological, or anthropological. Complexity works as a lens, and as an area of transdisciplinary academic and practical work that can be called a ‘science’ in itself, or a movement within existing disciplines (e.g. see Beinhocker’s book on what complexity means for economics).

Calling a problem ‘complex’ is a shorthand for saying that it has certain important aspects that we can best understand through a complexity lens, and that we can use explanatory and predictive tools generated by theory and empirical evidence to help address it. For example, social network analysis uses the theory of networks and empirical results on how they function in society to illuminate, explain and predict certain types of phenomena and behaviour. However, challenges are often termed ‘complex’ as an excuse for inaction or failure. Complex problems and difficult problems overlap, but they are not the same thing.

3) Does it matter when development problems are complex?

In a word, yes. Complex problems present challenges for the well-established instruments of public policy and administration. No matter how anyone describes ‘complexity’, I can guarantee that the reason complexity matters comes down to one or more of three challenges:

1. Distributed capacities: the knowledge and capacities required to tackle problems are spread across actors without strong, formalised institutional links.

3. Uncertain change pathways: it is unclear how to achieve a given aim in a given context, or change processes involve significant, unpredictable forces.

In researching my working paper of 2011, I was struck by the strength of these three themes across such a broad range of bodies of knowledge. None of this is new: uncertainty and divergence have been central elements of most definitions of complexity for decades. Outside complexity science, the terms have been used to classify different types of policy problems by the likes of Hisschemöller and Hoppe (see Hoppe’s recent book on the governance of problems).

The problem of ‘distributed capacities’ is often highlighted separately or assumed to result from the other two, but it represents a strong theme in the work on systems theory, complex adaptive systems and elsewhere. All three factors have been highlighted as central challenges for guiding change processes under the guise of ‘development as process’, or with relation to learning processes in community development as far back as 1980.

4) Why does this matter? And how much?

It renders many of our tools inappropriate. In many cases our established tools for public policy, programming, and administration are founded on ideas of concentrated capacities, agreed goals, and relatively clear or stable change pathways. When these tools are applied to complex problems, the result is typically one of two effects: formal systems either become meaningless box-ticking exercises, or they actively impede achievement of goals, putting in place perverse incentives and guaranteeing aims are not met. Evidence both can be seen in the reams of research on the log frame, or by a UN-wide evaluation on results-based management that found limited to no evidence of any utility of the system, despite the great amount of money spent.

It is hard to quantify how much this matters. One could partially estimate this by chalking up the cost of inappropriate agency-wide reforms as a partial waste, but it is impossible to estimate on a system-wide level the value of opportunities missed due to rigid tools. Evidence on management models is rarely conclusive, and importing new ideas into public policy and programming will always need to proceed based on careful assessments of problems with existing systems, but a certain amount of ‘faith’ is required to start with a new approach (for example New Public Management spread like wildfire across the public sector without its impact having been robustly assessed beforehand).

But what principles should this new approach be based on? Tomorrow, I look at the ‘so what’ question: what do agencies need to do differently?

6 comments

Thanks for this Harry, as with your 2011 paper, making complexity understandable. I’m looking forward to your post tomorrow and hoping for your ideas of how to get people to let go of the certainty of mimicking and planning and explore how to appropriately address complexity. If you’ve any evidence to share (I’ve not read Ben R’s book yet) that’d be great

Re: “In many cases our established tools for public policy, programming, and administration are founded on ideas of concentrated capacities, agreed goals, and relatively clear or stable change pathways”
I think you should add “Theories of Change” to LogFrames and RBM as yet another tool that is struggling to find an workable fit with the kinds of complex settings you have described (distributed capacities, divergent goals, uncertain change pathways), especially when ToCs are applied to larger scale events like sector wide approaches, and diversity (of actors, goals and activities) seems to increase exponentially.

Thanks for your kind comments Richard. The second part of the blog looks at what we need to do to take on board lessons from complexity, and also gives some proposals on how to go about trying to get them taken up.

I’ve also put some pointers in there to other resources and people working on these issues, so hopefully that will help. I’m also just starting on Ben’s book and I daresay there’s going to be a wealth of examples and proposals in here too. Duncan’s review comes on this blog on Thursday

Thanks Harry, this certainly resonates with our understanding of complexity and how it can help practitioners.
In our experience ToC provides a way of thinking (not a tool)in which distributed capacities (and the need for new types of capacities), divergent goals and uncertain pathways can be related. It also seems to me that after the analysis and agreement is reached that the situation is complex there is a need for a “simple” first probing type of action that is needed for first results or preconditions that would trigger change.

Jan I agree that within complex situations more ‘simple’ interventions are also relevant – the key being that there is a proper process leading up to them (e.g. convening to agree on goals with key stakeholders), and that they aren’t seen as the only ‘ends’ of an initiative.

Rick and Jan yes ToC is important, although it does seem to have been taken up as a tool rather than a way of thinking and in many cases seems to just be another language for describing your log frame (e.g. I liked Duncan’s recent post on this http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/what-use-theory-change-6-benefits-and-some-things-avoid). I’d be interested to get your ideas on how distribution of capacities, divergent goals, and uncertainty can be best incorporated and represented…

This is a conversational blog written and maintained by Duncan Green, strategic adviser for Oxfam GB and author of ‘From Poverty to Power’. This personal reflection is not intended as a comprehensive statement of Oxfam's agreed policies.